Occam's Banana
05-08-2014, 06:40 AM
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/politics-vs.-science-at-the-ipcc.html
In this post for IER (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/05/05/politics-vs-science-at-ipcc/) I quote from two of the Lead Authors of the latest IPCC report. It confirms what some of us have been saying for years. The intro: [see below]
Politics vs. Science at IPCC
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/05/05/politics-vs-science-at-ipcc/
Bob Murphy (05 May 2014)
Those pushing for aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change often claim that “the science is settled” and dismiss any dissenters as “deniers.” The so-called “consensus” is codified in the periodic reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The alarmist camp’s repeated references to “peer-review” and the number of organizations behind the IPCC are rhetorically very effective; they have done a great PR job in making it look as if their political solutions really do flow naturally from what the scientists in white lab coats are reporting. But allegations from IPCC authors show that politics and not science drive the process at the IPCC.
As we have documented countless times on these pages (here’s the latest example (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/04/03/new-ipcc-report-unwittingly-shows-weakness-of-alarmist-camp/)), the alarmists greatly exaggerate when they claim that aggressive and immediate government action is needed to prevent catastrophe. When you read the actual scientific literature, as opposed to the pithy summaries given by a few outspoken activists, then we see no cause for alarm. As we shall see, the latest findings stress a growing role for adaptation to a changing climate.
In the present post, I’ll walk through the recent statements issued by two bona fide experts on the economics of climate change: Richard Tol and Robert Stavins. Even though both of them played important roles in the latest IPCC report, they have publicly condemned the IPCC process as political, which distorts the underlying science and misleads policymakers and the public. Besides their impeccable credentials on this topic, Tol and Stavins are both supporters of a (modest) carbon tax. Therefore, their strong condemnations of the IPCC process should receive special attention from those who think “the science is settled” and that anyone challenging the alarmists is a “denier.”
[ ... more at link: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/05/05/politics-vs-science-at-ipcc/ ...]
In this post for IER (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/05/05/politics-vs-science-at-ipcc/) I quote from two of the Lead Authors of the latest IPCC report. It confirms what some of us have been saying for years. The intro: [see below]
Politics vs. Science at IPCC
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/05/05/politics-vs-science-at-ipcc/
Bob Murphy (05 May 2014)
Those pushing for aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change often claim that “the science is settled” and dismiss any dissenters as “deniers.” The so-called “consensus” is codified in the periodic reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The alarmist camp’s repeated references to “peer-review” and the number of organizations behind the IPCC are rhetorically very effective; they have done a great PR job in making it look as if their political solutions really do flow naturally from what the scientists in white lab coats are reporting. But allegations from IPCC authors show that politics and not science drive the process at the IPCC.
As we have documented countless times on these pages (here’s the latest example (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/04/03/new-ipcc-report-unwittingly-shows-weakness-of-alarmist-camp/)), the alarmists greatly exaggerate when they claim that aggressive and immediate government action is needed to prevent catastrophe. When you read the actual scientific literature, as opposed to the pithy summaries given by a few outspoken activists, then we see no cause for alarm. As we shall see, the latest findings stress a growing role for adaptation to a changing climate.
In the present post, I’ll walk through the recent statements issued by two bona fide experts on the economics of climate change: Richard Tol and Robert Stavins. Even though both of them played important roles in the latest IPCC report, they have publicly condemned the IPCC process as political, which distorts the underlying science and misleads policymakers and the public. Besides their impeccable credentials on this topic, Tol and Stavins are both supporters of a (modest) carbon tax. Therefore, their strong condemnations of the IPCC process should receive special attention from those who think “the science is settled” and that anyone challenging the alarmists is a “denier.”
[ ... more at link: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2014/05/05/politics-vs-science-at-ipcc/ ...]